Further to Thursday's post about the 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' slogan used by the SNP for the list vote, several of the contributions left in the extended discussion helped highlight the encroachment of soundbite-level politics onto the regional ballot paper.
Of course, the Scottish Socialist Party previously tried a similar trick by including 'Convener Tommy Sheridan' beside the party name, thus both exploiting the dominance of a single party figure in the public's mind and downplaying the relative invisibility of the other candidates on the list.
Hardly surprising, then, that George Galloway is utilising a similar ploy this time round in Glasgow,while the Greens are using "Patrick Harvie for MSP" (ditto Alison Johnstone in Edinburgh). Which makes Patrick Harvie's claim that the SNP's tactic could "risk the integrity of the vote again and put their self-interest ahead of the democratic will of the Scottish people" seem a tad hypocritical, because there are other Green candidates on the list who could be elected, even if that possibility is at best theoretical. Thus voters could think they are voting only for Mr Harvie but also end up with someone else.
On the other hand, at least in the case of the Sheridan, Galloway and the Greens there's nothing that might delude voters into thinking they're voting in some sort of quasi-presidential election, and in the latter case the named individuals are actually candidates on the list in question, thus in both these regards they aren't quite as misleading as the SNP's slogan.
Likewise, there are other phrases being used in this context which represent little more than trite and empty soundbites on a ballot paper. For example, in Edinburgh and Glasgow there are "Against coalition cutbacks", "Fight the cuts", the slightly ironic "Coalition against cuts" (seems to be a theme developing here!) and "Proudly Scottish, proudly British" (oh well, at least it's different!).
While taking issue with all this may seem pedantic, there are at least two issues. First, people are fed up of slogans, soundbites and skulduggery from politicians, and there seems to be more than an element of that apparent here.
Second, all the evidence suggests that many voters are confused by Holyrood's additional member system, both as regards the ballot paper per se and in terms of the precise consequences of how they vote.
There are clearly no easy answers to this, but in the interests of the integrity of the system the ballot papers should be made as straightforward and transparent as possible. The current rules are deficient in this regard, and voters shouldn't be potentially misled or distracted by slogans and soundbites.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't think the Green approach is really even "a tad" in the wrong direction, which won't surprise you because I was involved in the decision. In each region, if Green voters get anyone, as I hope they will, it'll be the named person. Obviously if we get two in any region, which has only previously been the case in Lothians once, they get an additional person, unnamed on the ballot. The worst thing, in other words, is that people who want to elect Green MSPs get more of them.
Not quite up there with the AS4FM issue associated in the Gould Report with 75% of the inadvertently spoilt papers in 2007, and where the entire purpose of the ballot was elided.
Indeed, James; as the post tried to make clear I'm not claiming that your own approach is as misleading as the SNP's, but on the other hand I do think it's at least *slightly* misleading.
For example, the voter may like PH but not like another Green candidate on the list, but may get both on the basis that the voter thought they were electing only PH.
Or if a party used a similar phrase and had the named candidate standing in the constituency and on the list then the voter could end up with another candidate in their region that they don't like, while they may have been misled into thinking they'd be getting the sloganised candidate (assuming that candidate wins in the constituency).
Or it may mislead votes into thinking that there's only one party candidate on the list, so they may vote for them on the basis that they think the party deserves ONE MSP in the region, whereas that and similar votes might contribute to them ending up with TWO!
And it could even blur the distinction with the consituency ballot paper, particularly if more of the parties started using named candidates in slogans.
Sorry if this sounds nitpicking, but the whole thing just seems a bit untransparent - to put it as nicely as possible - and conveys the impression that the parties are slightly exploiting public ignorance regarding the system, and it all merely adds to the confusion.
And, of course, if it seems pedantic then since you strategists spend lots of times thinking about these things then, as a corallary, so do us cynics ;0)
All ballot papers should have the name of the party and the list candidate - nothing else. In advertising a product anything else would be considered misleading.
And I wasn't having a pop at you Stuart on the other thread. I meant pot kettle black at the other parties criticising the SNP's little scheme, which I also disagree with.
No probs, Anon, I realised what you meant.
I mean, I've never been hypocritical about anything in my entire life. End of. Period.
Post a Comment